Featured Articles

A Note on Jews and Feminism

My recent review of Janice Fiamengo’s The Goddess that Failed cited her summary of a study by four Israeli social psychologists of a personality trait they called “TIV,” or the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. Fiamengo considered it valuable as a description of a kind of woman frequently met with in feminist circles, and I agree. I also noted in my review that the Israeli origin of the researchers might not be an accident: readers of this site are familiar with the salience of victimhood within the self-concept of many Jews. I did not explore this question in the review, because I wished to keep the focus on Prof. Fiamengo’s ideas, but will try to address it briefly here.

Here, as a reminder, is Fiamengo’s summary of the TIV type:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

A look at the original paper by the Israeli psychologists (which can be read here) reveals that the ethnic angle did not escape the authors’ attention. They refer explicitly to the cult of the holocaust, and recognize that it can represent a moral hazard for their own people by way of the TIV personality. Good for them: we all know what epithet would have been assigned to any gentile researcher bold enough to make the same point.

Group differences are statistical, and the TIV personality presumably occurs at different rates in different races and ethnicities. It is likely to be elevated among Jews, although it would probably be futile to expect any objective research on this question in our current cultural and intellectual environment. But the TIV type can and does occur within other races.

Indeed, much group conflict over the past forty years has been aptly described as a “victimhood sweepstakes” wherein not only Jews and feminists but blacks, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other identity groups competitively jockey for moral authority by signaling their victimhood. The only group not allowed to participate in the sweepstakes—White, heterosexual, able-bodied men—are by now a distinct minority of the American population (possibly a third). So the increasing prominence of the personality type described by these Israeli researchers would seem to help explain many aspects of our historical moment, and not just feminism or Jewish-gentile conflict.

Anyone who writes against feminism as I do eventually encounters the thesis that it is all simply a product of Jewish subversion, often backed up with long lists of prominent Jewish second-wave feminists. Here is a popular graphic currently doing the rounds on the internet that embodies this thinking:

This view is historically myopic: it requires that one’s familiarity with feminism be limited to the American second wave, usually dated from 1963. But feminist ideas have been widely circulating in the West since the eighteenth century, and not only in the form of Mary Wollstonecraft’s celebrated tract. A review of long-forgotten German debates for and against the “emancipation of women” in the 1780s and -90s, for example, reveal that there is not much novel in twentieth century feminism (cf. Klaus Epstein’s The Genesis of German Conservatism pp. 229–236). Indeed, we have plentiful evidence that similar ideas were discussed in ancient Athens, as witness book 5 of Plato’s Republic and Aristophanes’ comedy The Assemblywomen. Western man did not need the Jews to invent feminism for us.

It remains true, however, that Jews have been massively overrepresented in second wave feminism—by far the most successful version, as they have been in other forms of twentieth-century radicalism, and this calls for explanation. A good place to start might be the work of the above-discussed Israeli psychologists on the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. If Jews are indeed especially susceptible to this “toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness,” it would explain much of their involvement in destructive movements such as feminism without our having to assume the existence of a conscious conspiracy to subvert alien races.

Dumb Genes and Dead Teens: How Two Crime-Crews Crashed into Biological Reality

Imagine you’re a Martian. You don’t know a syllable of any Earthly language or a symbol of any Earthly script. This being so, which of these sentences in English would you think was the odd one out?

  1. It’s hot in here with the goats.
  2. It’s not in here with the coats.
  3. The temperature is elevated at this caprine-congregated locality.

If you were a Martian, you’d surely think sentence #3 is the odd one out, whether you saw the sentences written or heard them spoken. After all, sentences #1 and #2 are only fractionally different in two places, while sentence #3 differs entirely from both of them. Yet it’s sentence #2 that’s the odd one out, saying something completely different from #1 and #3. Meaning is what’s important: the output of the symbols, not the similarity of the symbols. Very different sentences can have very similar meanings; very similar sentences can have very different meanings.[1]

Bodies, brains and behaviors

That’s true in all symbolic fields, from linguistics to mathematics to genetics: tiny changes in the coding can have huge effects on the output. In genetics, a tiny change can mean the difference between life and death: changing one A to T in the four-letter genetic code can mean fatal organ damage or stroke. That’s part of why it’s ludicrous to argue that all races and both sexes of human beings must be very similar in cognition and psychology because their genes are very similar. Does that apply to dogs? No, of course not. Chihuahuas and Great Danes, collies and borzois, have very similar genes and very different bodies and brains. Chihuahuas are tiny, Great Danes are huge; collies are clever, borzois are stupid.[2] Indeed, it’s astonishing to think that chihuahuas are a sub-species of wolf, the common ancestor of all dogs. Tiny changes in lupine genes have created the bewildering variety of canine bodies, brains and behaviors.

Same species, very different specifics: Dogs are a sub-species of wolf (images from Wikipedia)

What applies to dogs also applies to humans, because we have not floated free of biology and DNA as the left would like to pretend. Take Travellers. They’re an inbred, nomadic, criminally inclined, low-IQ group from Ireland that behave remarkably like Gypsies, who originally came to Europe from India. But Travellers aren’t in fact Gypsy in their genetics. No, their genetics are very similar to those of the Irish Whites among whom they emerged very recently. But similarity in genes does not mean similarity in behavior. You could say that Travellers look White and behave Black: they excel at crime and violence; they fail in education and employment. Like Blacks, Travellers despise the White majority that surrounds them, regarding them as fit only for predating and parasitizing. Travellers routinely enslave vulnerable Whites, tricking or coercing the homeless and mentally ill into working without pay and living in filthy housing, sometimes for decades. In effect, Travellers are White Gypsies, which is why they themselves identify with non-White Gypsies and are so often linked with Gypsies. The champion boxer Tyson Fury is a Traveller, but calls himself “The Gypsy King.”

Time and Gene-Space

If it’s astonishing that chihuahuas are the same species as wolves, it’s also astonishing that such a good boxer as Fury has emerged in such a small group as Travellers. Or is it? In fact, no, it isn’t. Travellers have self-selected for fighting and aggression, just as Jews have self-selected for scholarship and cognition. And so the tiny group of Jews produces a wildly disproportionate number of geniuses and fraudsters, just as the tiny group of Travellers produces a wildly disproportionate number of boxers and criminals. Yet Jewish evolution for higher intelligence seems to have begun as recently as the Middle Ages. Traveller evolution for lower intelligence and higher aggression seems to have begun even later: they first emerged as a distinct, inbreeding group “around the mid-17th century.”

Gang-signs and gold chains: the White-looking, Black-acting Traveller thieves and thugs who died in the same way in Ireland (above) and England (images from Irish Independent and the London Independent)

That’s an eyeblink of evolutionary time. But the tiny distance Travellers have moved in time and gene-space has had huge effects on their brains and behavior. Britain has just witnessed two glaring examples of bad Traveller behavior in what you could call a crashing coincidence. On 16th August, four teenaged Travellers and a friend with a Polish name died in a head-on collision in Ireland. They’d been driving the wrong way at high speed down a motorway to evade the police. On 22nd August, four more teenaged Travellers and a friend with a Polish name died in another head-on collision in England.[3] Again, they’d been driving the wrong way at high speed down a motorway to evade the police. And the two groups didn’t just die in the same way. They’d lived in the same way too, as thugs and thieves. So consider this: Travellers are a tiny group and almost identical in their genetics to the general White British population. So how could Travellers have produced two very similar sets of stupid and reckless criminals who died in the same way in such a short space of time?

Flocking and fornicating

Well, Travellers couldn’t have produced that crashing coincidence if leftist propaganda about human genetics were correct. Leftists have a core commandment of “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy,” so they say that all humans are the same under the skin. Some leftists are lying when they say that, some are simply deluded. We’re not the same under the skin even if we have the same skin, as Travellers and the White British do. And when I talked about those friends “with a Polish name” above, I was choosing my words carefully. I think the friends with apparently Polish names will have been Gypsies or from some other equivalent of the Travellers in Poland. Birds of a feather flock together. Birds of a feather fornicate together too, because August isn’t the only month of 2026 when Travellers have hit the headlines in a disturbing way. There was a scandal in June about teenaged Travellers not being sent to jail after being found guilty of committing and filming two rapes. But like the car-crashers, the rapists hit the headlines only as criminals, not as Travellers. The mainstream media censor the race and religion of minority criminals whenever they can. This is in accordance with another core commandment of leftism: “Thou shalt not see patterns, except when they’re not there.”

And so leftists have stayed silent about the obvious ethnic pattern in those two deadly car-crashes, while shouting about a pattern that wasn’t there at all in the crashes. Leftists haven’t condemned the Traveller criminality that caused the crashes. Instead, they’ve condemned the social media that didn’t cause the crashes. The left hate social media because the truth is spoken there, so they’re trying to bring it under firm leftist control. There is an undeniable trend of young men filming themselves driving dangerously on public roads for social-media kudos, but those two sets of Traveller car-crashers weren’t taking part in the trend. They drove the wrong way on the motorway to escape the police, not to film themselves for social media. There’s another ethnic pattern that the mainstream media are staying silent about: an astonishing 50% of Travellers, predominantly male, die before the age of 39 in road accidents and other violent ways, while 70% of Travellers fail to live past 59.

Importing more savagery

That’s what happens when the genetically mediated stupidity and aggression of Travellers meet the genetically mediated inventiveness and technology of Whites. As a group, Travellers can produce world-class boxers like Tyson Fury, but they can’t produce world-class inventors like Carl Benz (1844-1929), the great German pioneer of Mercedes-Benz fame and der Vater des Automobils. Travellers steal and misuse high-performance cars rather than inventing and building them. And yet, genetically speaking, Travellers are almost identical to Whites and have been evolving as a distinct group for only a few centuries. That tiny movement in time and genetic space has had huge consequences for the cognition and criminality of Travellers. Their intelligence and insight have fallen; their thieving and thuggery have risen. But Britain’s leftists haven’t been content for us to have one indigenous group rich in stupid criminals, namely Travellers, and one immigrated group rich in stupid criminals, namely Gypsies. No, leftists have imported lots more groups of stupid criminals from all over the Third World. Take Pakistanis. Like Travellers, Pakistanis don’t excel at invention and technology, but they do excel at rape and dangerous driving:

More gang-signs from more car-cretins: the three inbred Pakistanis self-slain in Bolton (image from LBC)

A two-car crash that killed four people in [the heavily enriched English town of] Bolton on Sunday was a “tragedy waiting to happen” in an area that has seen regular crashes in recent months a neighbour has said. Taxi driver Masrob Ali, 54, from Blackburn, Lancashire, died when his car was involved in the head-on collision on Wigan Road.

Three teenagers also died – Muhammad Danyaal Asghar Ali, 19, Farhan Patel, 18, and Mohammed Jibrael Mukhtar, 18 – all from Bolton. Gulam Patel, who has lived on Wigan Road for 25 years, said there had been “four or five” crashes on the road in just the last year.

“It’s happened before but this time it’s four lives gone,” the 61-year-old said. He said the situation was “frightening” for the families who live on the street and speed cameras or speed bumps need to be installed to slow drivers down. (“Bolton fatal crash was ‘tragedy waiting to happen’,” BBC News, 13th January 2026)

Whites are the inventors and innovators of the car; Pakistanis and Travellers are the idiots and abusers of the car. Those eight dead Travellers and four dead Pakistanis were killed just as much by their genetics as by their dangerous driving. Without the one, we wouldn’t have the other.


[1]  Note that a thoughtful Martian might well recognize that nearly identical sentences in a Terrene language could have very different meanings, because that would presumably also be in true in whatever language or languages were used on Mars. But it wouldn’t be true if Martians communicated by telepathy or some other non-symbolic system.

[2]  Borzois have been bred to have narrow skulls, with unpleasant consequences for borzoi brains and behavior.

[3]  Thousands of future crimes have been prevented by the deaths of the ten youths, but unfortunately the crash in Ireland seriously injured those in the other car and the crash in England killed two policemen in the other car.

Jewish woman praises WWII Germans! SS man singled out as a true gentleman

Book review. Gone to Ground: One Woman’s Extraordinary Account of Survival in the Heart of Nazi German
Marie Jalowicz Simon. 2014

Marie Jalowicz Simon survived WWII as a Jew in Berlin. From 1942 she was illegal, but survived . She was helped by hundreds of Germans. Thousands knew about her. Nobody snitched

She is full of praise for the Germans who helped her. She names her managers at her forced labour job at Siemens and praises them to the skies. She names various SS, SA and other enthusiastically anti-Semitic people who helped her, because she was obviously just a Little Jew, not one of those nasty Big Jews that everybody loves to hate.

She came to a realization that might be useful in stopping the current Israeli slaughter. Is there some way to transmit this message to the Israeli population about the general Little Jew population over the world? It might help reduce the persecution mania.

I realized that the same Aryan Germans who hated the rich Jew from the big house like poison…had nothing against starving young girls who worked hard, just as he did himself.

This story could be made into a superb TV comedy. It is a wonderful antidote to the horrific allegations of widespread German cruelty towards the Jews.

Marie is by her own account, mostly kosher, mildly Zionist and enthusiastically communist. Praising goys is forbidden by the Jewish religion. Even accepting a favour from a non-Jew invokes a blessing on the non-Jew and therefore should be avoided. The socialist and Zionist will also object to the praise of Germans.

Her words of praise are somewhat swamped by the amount of insulting and scandalous details she reveals about the people who risked their necks to help her. A Dutchman saved her by allowing her to live unregistered in his apartment for two years. She is quite insulting about the man, considering that if discovered the authorities could potentially charge him with a crime and even hang him.

She is gracious enough to describe how she provoked him into throwing a boot at her and giving her a black eye. She admits that she was behaving outrageously.

She reveals much of her personality: cruel thoughts about people who helped her and a remarkable tendency to tell lies when there was absolutely no advantage to lying. At the end of the war, the Dutchman invites her to come back to Holland with him. She declines and advises him not to tell people that she declined, but instead to tell the lie that he could not find her.

She has very high praise for the postmen of Berlin. If they were prepared to swear to the authorities that they knew the person, it could help with getting a type of ID card. Not one Berlin postman refused to help!

She describes a sociological experiment she persuaded her two glamourous Jewish lady friends to take part in. They dressed up well and put on their newly obligatory yellow stars. Then they asked various policemen for directions. When the cops advised them to take public transport, they sweetly told him that as Jews, they were forbidden to use it except for getting to and from work. When the cop suggested a route through central Berlin, they told him that they were forbidden even to walk in those areas. The cops were embarassed at the restrictions. One policeman gave them good advice, which they followed: You don’t look like Jews. Take the stupid star off and nobody will know any different.

In some ways being a Jew in Nazi Berlin was a bit like being unvaxxed in the Covid era—stupid restrictions on Little Jews while Big Jews bought Aryan certs and partied with the Nazis.

She tells how by the right attitude, an awkward situation can be resolved. A minor official threatens to have her arrested because she didn’t have her ID card with her. She starts thanking him profusely for not arresting her and promising that she will carry her ID card in future. He relents.

She prepared a plan for her arrest. It worked. She feigned unconcern when the policeman knocked on her door in the early morning and told her she must come to the station for questioning. But she asked about food. It might take many hours, the policeman agreed. She asked if she might go downstairs and some get bread from a neighbour. “I’m half naked, in my slip. You know I won’t run onto the street.”

He says OK. She unobtrusively picks up her wallet and a bottle as she leaves. She plans to use the bottle to hit the second cop over the head, if necessary. At the main door, the other cop is waiting. She switches roles and pretends her two-year-old boy has locked her out of the house and she must go for two minutes to get the spare key from her mother-in-law’s place.

She also makes a suggestive remark to him, which causes him to roar with laughter and slap her on her rump and she goes out the door. She walks slowly, turns the corner and runs.

She asks the first person she meets for help: “The cops want to arrest me! Can you help me?”. It’s an old German man. Of course he can. He gives her his coat and walks with her to friends where she can get more clothes.

It seems that she got much more practical help from random Aryan Germans than she got from fellow Jews — even her own family. This is an important message that every Little Jew should be made aware of.

It is greatly to her credit that she does not spare Hebrew blushes when she describes bad behaviour by her tribesmen. This reviewer strongly suspects that in the 600 pages that did not appear in the book, there is much unflattering commentary about the behaviour of Big Jews in Berlin during the war and their links to the Nazis. She was a native Berliner who knew all sorts of people. She heard the rumours and they must be in the extra pages.

Her description of the SS manager in Siemens is the portrait of an honest and decent man. She claims that she and the SS man closely resembled each other and they were both aware of it.

At break time the Jewish girls used to boast about how much their various managers loved the Jews. Some were smuggling in sandwiches for them.

There was only one nasty German at Siemens, and Jalowicz specifically states his nastiness was nothing to do with Nazis.

It seems that management/labour relations were better in the Siemens’ forced labour workshops than in many modern workplaces.

She describes only a handful of times where someone was suspicious of her and threatened to call the police. Only once does she describe rude behaviour by a state official. In the busy waiting room of the Jewish Labour Office, a guy is desperate to know if he can smoke. The head of the whole office is passing by and she asks him whether smoking is allowed. He roars an ethnic insult at her. But he doesn’t hit her or punish her in any way.

That is it. That is the only insulting remark made to her by an official of the German state.

The book is based on 77 tapes recorded in the months before her death. They yielded 900 pages, but only one third made it to the book. What was omitted?

There is a lot of detail of her daily life and scandal, and very little on political matters.

Zionist collaboration with Hitler was well known at the time, as was his collaboration with strongly Jewish communists. Rumours of Jewish ancestry amongst high-ranking Nazis were commonplace. Otto Strasser tells us that even amongst Party leaders, it was common to ask what Adolf was doing in Munich in 1919 when a Jewish communist revolt was ongoing? Was the Fuehrer a Jew-loving communist in 1919?

The missing 600 pages must surely have some comments on these questions.

Hitler’s numerous Jewish helpers must have been an inspiration to the thousands of Big Jew-hating Berliners who knew she was illegal but didn’t snitch on her.

“If mein leiber Fuehrer can have Jewish SS men (Oppenheimer), financiers (Schroeder), doctors (Morell), girlfriends (Eva, Geli Raubal), soldiers (150k), PR guys (Lazar) and sundry assistants, there can be no harm in me turning a blind eye to this charming little Jewish girl.”

After the war, she had a successful academic career in east Germany. Her son is a historian and edited the book.

The New Elders of Zion

Anyone who has looked into the Jewish Question, and even many who have not, likely have at least a passing awareness of the infamous document known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—or ‘Protocols’ for short. This small booklet, which first emerged in Russia around 1900, purports to lay out something of a plan for Jewish world domination.[1] Loosely organized into 24 short essays or individual protocols, this rambling, anonymous work portrays itself as a sort of ‘meeting minutes’ or ‘lecture notes’ from an evidently prominent and influential speaker, talking to a group of (presumably) Jews, explaining the means and mechanisms by which they will dominate individual nations and eventually the world via a master leader called “the Sovereign.”

As one might imagine, such a work has been roundly condemned as one of the most anti-Semitic publications of the 20th century. It has also—owing to its anonymity and fuzzy origins—been regularly denounced as a “forgery”; this assertion relies primarily on textual similarities to passages from an 1865 book by a Jewish writer, Maurice Joly, titled Dialogue in Hell. And because it is a forgery, we are told, the work as a whole is bogus and invalid, and therefore ought to be utterly disregarded.

But this, of course, is nonsense. Even if the writer lifted certain passages from Joly’s book as he was writing in (say) the late 1800s, that does not invalidate any truths in it; it simply reveals the author to be a bit of a plagiarist. The protocols could still be legitimate versions or encapsulations of some actual Jewish plan. But since we do not even know if the writer was a Jew (conveying in summary form an actual plan) or a non-Jew (attempting to make the Jews look bad), it is almost impossible to make clear and accurate determinations here.

As for myself, I do claim some knowledge of the origins and context of the Protocols, having edited and translated a new edition of this work in 2023: Protocols of the Elders of Zion: The Definitive English Edition, published by Clemens & Blair. This work includes the full Protocols in a new, readable American English translation, as well as early commentaries from 1920 and 1921, and later analyses by National Socialist and contemporary thinkers. In what follows below, I will be citing this edition.

First appearing in print in Russia in 1903, the Protocols gained some initial traction there during the first Russian Revolution of 1905, a conflict (really, a civil war) in which a force led by the Jew Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jew Vladimir Lenin violently confronted Czar Nicholas II; the Jews were defeated, but their actions would certainly have at least given credence to a Jewish movement to dominate Russia.

Then came World War One in 1914. The war raged in Europe for three long years, often devolving into a trench-warfare stalemate. England, though, was in increasingly difficult shape, especially into the second half of 1916; in the Battle of the Somme that year, they lost upwards of 600,000 soldiers. Becoming desperate for assistance, the Brits then made a “contract with Jewry” (Temperley) by which they agreed to help the Zionist Jews obtain a homeland in Palestine, if American Jews would bring the U.S. into the war against its will. Pressure on Woodrow Wilson quickly intensified, and he yielded in April of 1917, declaring war on Germany. Britain then reciprocated by drafting the Balfour Declaration, which was signed in November of that year.[2]

Then in March 1917, Russian czar Nicholas was ousted, paving the way for a Jewish-Bolshevik takeover of that nation in October. Jewish activity culminated in late 1918, when Germany collapsed and was defeated, thanks in large part to the revolutionary activity of German Jews like Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, Karl Radek, and Kurt Eisner. Thereafter, Jews led the formation of the so-called Weimar government in Germany, dominating that nation for several years—until the rise of Hitler.

Thus, in relatively quick succession, it became obvious to many people that Jewish wartime activity had led to their taking power in Russia and Germany, and demonstrated their dominance over Britain and America. The Jews truly were “taking over the world.” Consequently, the then-15-year-old Protocols, once a curiosity, could now be understood as a very real, very serious plan for world domination. Non-Jews everywhere had to face the Protocols as a literal blueprint for action, and to deal with it accordingly.

“Ruler of the Rulers”

We need to keep in mind two things at this point. One: The state of Israel obviously did not yet exist when the Protocols were written; Israel would not come into being until a UN General Assembly vote in 1947, and was not declared by the Jews until 1948.[3] For the writer(s) of the Protocols, they could only speculate about a future Jewish state in Palestine, which certainly was not imminent in 1900.[4]

Two: World power, however, was another matter. Well before 1900, Jews were already considered by many to be de facto “rulers of the world.” As early as 1798, German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that “the wealth of the Jews…apparently exceeds per capita that of any other nation at the present time”.[5] In 1823, the poet Lord Byron wrote “all states, all things, all sovereigns [the Jews] control”.[6] In 1843, Bruno Bauer observed that “the Jew…determines the fate of the whole [Austrian] Empire by his financial power. The Jew…decides the destiny of Europe”.[7] And perhaps more than Europe. In an essay of 1860, Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked on Jewish toughness, brought on by years of persecution and suffering: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew, has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth”.[8]

By 1850, German composer Richard Wagner could complain that much of European society was controlled by Jews. It was no longer a question of “emancipation” of the Jews but rather of coming to grips with their power. He wrote: “According to the present constitution of the world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipated; he rules, and will rule, so long as money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force.” Where money rules, Jews rule: this was his message. Hence, “Jewry itself is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.” In a follow-up essay of 1869, Wagner noted that the European press was “entirely directed by Jews”; control of the press, combined with their accumulated wealth, resulted in a Jewry that was “the mightiest organization of our time”.[9]

In 1873, writer Frederick Millingen published a booklet entitled “The Conquest of the World by the Jews.” There, he wrote that “the Jews…are now the wealthiest and most influential class of men; and [they] have attained a position of vast power, the likes of which we do not meet in all history”.[10] Specifically with respect to Germany, in 1879, journalist Wilhelm Marr issued an influential essay, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom,” decrying the fact that “Jewry has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis.” Into a naïve and innocent Germany “penetrated a smooth, crafty, pliable Jewry” that defeated “the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices”—that is, by exploiting his weaknesses. “Germany is finished,” concludes Marr.[11]

In 1880, Laurent Oliphant could write about the Jews’ “financial operations of the largest scale.” “Owing to the financial, political, and commercial importance to which the Jews have now attained,” they have become an indispensable ally in any future conflict.[12] Then, in his influential book Jewish France (1885), French journalist Edouard Drumont made a shocking and frankly unbelievable claim: “Jews possess half of the capital in the world.” Commenting specifically on France, he noted that the total wealth of that nation was around 150 billion francs, “of which the Jews possess at least 80 billion”—that is, slightly more than half.[13] A decade later, historian Goldwin Smith confirmed this view: “Judaism is now [in 1894] the great financial power of Europe, that is, it is the greatest power of all”.[14]

All this, then, had emerged and was circulating in intellectual circles well before the final version of the Protocols was written. Any talk there about world rule was not mere speculation; it was well underway. It was realistically attainable. And it was within grasp. All they had to do was stick to the plan.

And here it becomes clear, I think, that the identity of the author(s) of the Protocols is perhaps irrelevant. The document describes in fair detail the “Jewish plan” from ages past: Acquire wealth by hook or by crook, use that wealth to corrupt the government, and then use governmental power to tilt the playing-field even more in the favor of Jews. Strive, ultimately, for world control. Do all this while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to debase, degrade, humiliate, and destroy the Goyim (non-Jews); the world is a zero-sum game, and every loss for gentiles is a gain for Jews. Hold no moral code but “Jewry first.” Might makes right, and ends justify the means. This has been the plan for three thousand years, and it is the plan today; it has worked in the past, and it will surely work in the future. “God” (Yahweh) promised this to the Jews long ago, and he has proven true to his word. This is the message of the Protocols. Whether it is the exposé of an actual Jewish cabal or the work of some Jew-hating anti-Semite does not really matter. It lays out the actual plan in stark terms for all to see. We can either act on it, or choose to ignore it.[15]

Two Relevant Questions

In the remainder of this essay, I will focus on two issues: First, how does the plan look today, in light of recent world events? And second, who might plausibly count as the new “Elders of Zion”—that is, who are the most influential Jews (in America, at least), those who might be leading the charge toward Jewish domination?

Let me begin, then, by working through the protocols in sequence, pulling out some select passages that have a particular resonance today. In what follows, the reader must bear in mind that, here in America, both major political parties are dominated by Jewish money. Republicans receive at least 25% of their political funding from Jewish sources, and Democrats at least 50%.[16] Hence, the actions of both parties are reflective of Jewish wants and interests. American politics are Jewish politics, pure and simple.

In the end, the reader must judge for himself whether or not the following quoted passages conform to current events—passages that are now at least 125 years old.

I will describe our system, both from our own viewpoint and from that of the Goyim” (P1, p. 77).[17] The word ‘goyim’ (plural of ‘goy’) is a Jewish term of contempt for non-Jews. This immediately marks it as a (nominal) Jewish document, one in which non-Jews, or gentiles, are viewed with utter disdain. This latter point is hardly contentious; if there is one dominant trait of Jewry from millennia past, it is a kind of misanthropy—a hatred for all non-Jews.[18] Such an attitude is well-documented in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, and in the Shulchan Aruch. This misanthropy has been a virtual hallmark of the Jewish people for thousands of years, and it holds as true today as ever; it is the key component of the Jewish supremacism that drives nearly all rich and powerful Jews.

This task [of crushing those in power] becomes easier if the [Goy] ruler himself has embraced the idea of freedom, of ‘liberalism’” (P1, p. 77). Liberalism, loosely defined as a broad freedom of thought and action, has proven useful to Jews because it gives them license to unleash all sorts of detrimental, damaging ideas and institutions upon otherwise innocent people. In a tightly-run society that operates with oversight, moderation, and regulation, Jews are constrained in their options; in a free and liberal society, “anything goes,” and Jews have a free hand.

Guided entirely by shallow passions, superstitions, customs, traditions, and sentimental theories, the mob becomes embroiled in party dissensions that prevent all possibility of reaching an agreement, even one based on perfectly sound reasoning. Every decision of the mob depends upon an accidental or prearranged majority… (P1, p. 78). In a democracy, the “mob,” the masses, rule; but their decisions are based on all sorts of irrational things (“shallow passions,” “superstitions,” etc.). Party strife—like ‘left’ versus ‘right’—overrides sound thinking and good judgement, even as the Jewish overseers are able to “prearrange” the outcome by manipulating the people via mass media.

“He who desires to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. Noble and popular qualities—like honesty and frankness—become vices in politics, as they will defeat a leader more rapidly than the most powerful enemy” (P1 p. 78). Jewish politics sinks to the lowest common denominator. Moral virtue in a politician is not only irrelevant, it is a handicap.

“Given the present instability of all authority, our power will be more unassailable than any other because it will be invisible until it is so well-rooted that no cunning can undermine it” (P1, p. 79). Jews are masters at hiding both their own identity and the effects of their action. Jewish power is indeed largely invisible to the common man; it takes a fair amount of effort to uncover the truth, even in this Internet age.

The fact that the representatives of the nation can be replaced [via elections], delivers them into our power and practically places their appointment in our hands” (P1, p. 82). American elections are essentially a continuous string of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel candidates. When one leaves office, a new one is “elected” to take his or her place. Exceptions like Kentucky’s Thomas Massie are rare and largely powerless to effect change. Very recently, we have seen a slight shift toward more anti-Israeli (never anti-Jewish) rhetoric, but it remains to be seen how significant this will be.

It is necessary for us that, whenever possible, wars should bring no territorial advantages; this will shift war to an economic basis and force nations to realize the strength of our predominance” (P2, p. 83). Jewish-instigated wars have shifted, since WW2, from territorial gains to economic gains; from territorial defeats to economic defeats. At one time, territory was important, but once Jews gained their Jewish state in 1948, territorial advancement became largely irrelevant—except of course for Israel, which has a never-ending thirst for more land—the Greater Israel project. (The Protocols are rife with explicit double-standards: rules that hold for Goyim but not for Jews.)

The administrators chosen by us from among the people in accordance with their capacity for servility will be inexperienced in the art of government; consequently, they will easily become pawns in our game…” (P2, p. 83). Virtually all prominent politicians, and most minor ones, are utterly subservient to Jewish interests and Jewish money. Their careers live or die upon their conformance with the Jewish-Israeli line. This has been true for at least 50 years in America, but it is more obvious now than ever; just consider how many politicians call for a complete end of aid to Israel; for a prosecution of Israeli war crimes; for an open discussion about the pervasive role of Jews and Jewish money in government, business, academia, press, and entertainment—zero. Utter servility is the name of the game today.

There is one great force in the hands of modern states that arouses thought movements among the people: the press. The press’ role is to indicate necessary demands, to register complaints of the people, and to express and promote dissatisfaction. The triumph of free speech is incarnated in the press; but governments have been unable to profit by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it, we have attained influence, while remaining in the background.” (P2, p. 84). Jews own, control, or otherwise dominate all the major US media corporations: Comcast (Brian Roberts), Disney (Dana Walden, and recently Bob Iger), Warner Bros (Michael DeLuca), Paramount Skydance (David and Larry Ellison), and Fox (Zionist Murdoch family, likely part-Jewish).

“Thanks to the press, we have gathered gold in our hands, although it cost us rivers of blood and tears. It cost us the sacrifice of many of our own people. But every sacrifice on our part is worth a thousand Goyim before God” (P2, p. 84). Of the ten richest Americans, at least five are Jews: Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Michael Dell. (Possible Jewish heritage of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would of course add to this number.) Not far down the list are other Jews, such as Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Yass, Stephen Schwarzman, Miriam Adelson, Marilyn Simons, Henry Samueli, Len Blavatnik, and Dan Gilbert. Much of their wealth comes from high tech, which is now effectively part of “the press.”

Today I can tell you that our goal is close at hand. Only a small distance remains, and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent—the symbol of our people—will be complete. When this circle is completed, then all the European states will be enclosed in it, as in unbreakable chains” (P3, p. 85). The EU flag is circle of gold stars on a blue background; it was designed primarily by a Jew, Paul M. G. Levy. Europe is certainly under Jewish control today—both internally and indirectly, via the power of the U.S.

To induce the lovers of authority to abuse their power, we have placed all forces in opposition to each other, having developed their liberal tendencies towards independence. We have encouraged every undertaking in this direction; we have placed formidable weapons in the hands of all parties, and made power the goal of every ambition. We turned governments into arenas in which party wars are fought out. Soon, chaos and bankruptcy will appear everywhere” (P3, p. 85). Political strife is an excellent means by which to distract from the real problem, namely Jewish manipulation and control of society.

We, on the contrary, are concerned with…the degeneration of the Goyim. Our power lies in the chronic malnutrition and weakness of the worker, because through this he falls under our power and is unable to find either strength or energy to combat it. Hunger gives capital a greater power over the worker than any sovereign legal authority under an aristocracy. Through misery, jealousy, and hatred, we manipulate the mob and crush those who stand in our way” (P3, p. 86). Junk food, drugs, alcohol, chemical preservatives, sugar, contrived pandemics—all these serve to addict and sicken the masses, who then can barely function in their daily lives, let alone spend time and effort on serious political matters.

This hatred [of the upper classes] will be still more accentuated by an economic crisis, which will stop financial transactions and all industrial life. Having organized a general economic crisis by all possible underhanded means, and with the help of the gold that is all in our hands, we will throw great crowds of workmen into the street, simultaneously, in all nations” (P3, p 87). An excellent anticipation of the Depression, which was likely induced by Jewish action.[19] This also anticipates later economic crises such as the 1973 oil crisis, the junk bond crisis of the late 1980s, the 2008 housing collapse, and the Covid recession—and now the Iran War financial crisis.

As things stand, as an international force, we are invulnerable; if we are attacked by one state, we are supported by others” (P3, p. 88). In 2003, Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said “Today Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” He was speaking of Jewish control over the US military and the executive branch. Of course, Israel is looking very vulnerable at the moment, thanks to Jewish overreach in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza; but even a defeat there will not mean the end of the power of world Jewry. As long as they own or control trillions of dollars, they are effectively “invulnerable.”

We will create a strong centralized government, so as to collect social forces under our power” (P5, p. 91). Jews have always pushed for centralized governmental control, which makes it much easier for them to manipulate the levers of power. A decentralized system is much harder to control. Consequently, we have seen massive pressure for a large centralized government in the US (since 1900) and in Europe—hence the formation of the EU.

All the wheels of government mechanism move by the action of the motor that is in our hands, and that motor is gold” (P5, p. 92). Money indeed is the decisive factor in U.S. politics, and Jews, by far, donate more political money than any other interest group.

We must direct the education of the Goy societies so that their arms will drop hopelessly at their side whenever they face any task where initiative is required. The intensity of action resulting from individual freedom of action dissipates its force when it encounters another person’s freedom. This strikes a heavy blow against morale, yielding disappointments and failures” (P5, p. 93). Western academia is in a disastrous state, both in the U.S. and Europe. Jewish money, administrators, and faculty have utterly distorted the traditional strength of academia, and a Jewish-inspired “woke” ideology contaminates all levels.

We must be able to overcome all opposition by provoking a war with the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose us. Should, however, those neighbors, in turn, decide to unite against us, we must respond by creating a world war” (P7, p. 97). A remarkable anticipation of both World Wars, not to mention the Cold War, Iraq Wars I and II, Afghanistan War, Ukraine-Russia War, and now, the U.S.-Israeli Iran War. Major wars are marvelously beneficial to Jewish interests; they earn wartime profits, they realign global power structures, and they kill lots of Goyim.

“[T]o sum up our system of enslaving the Goy governments of Europe, we will demonstrate our power to them by assassinations and terrorism” (P7, p. 98). Israel is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism globally, and the Israeli Mossad is the leading organization for political assassination—closely followed by the Jewish-influenced U.S. military and CIA.

As it is not yet safe to give the responsible government posts directly to our brother Jews, we will give them to people whose record and whose character are so terrible that there is a vast gulf between them and the people. Such leaders would face nothing but condemnation and imprisonment, should they disobey our orders. This fact will force them to protect our interests, to their dying day” (P8, p. 99). American Jews directly hold many positions of power (something like 35 current members of Congress, along with cabinet positions and one Supreme Court justice), but the remaining non-Jews are almost uniformly of bad character even as they pander to Jewish-Israeli interests. Jewish blackmail surely keeps many of them in line—likely including President Trump.

We have already effectively destroyed all governments but our own, even though, nominally, many still remain. At present, if any government protests against us, it is done only as a matter of course, and at our desire, and by our order; this is because their anti-Semitism is necessary to enable us to control our lesser brethren” (P9, p. 100). Most Western governments—and many elsewhere—are currently hopelessly dysfunctional or otherwise “destroyed.” Good governance would be a hinderance to Jewish power, and therefore it will be undermined wherever possible. The specter of ‘anti-Semitism’ is routinely raised in all Western nations, both to rally all Jews and to frighten the masses into yet more protective policies toward Jews.

We have affected legal procedure, electoral law, the press, personal freedom—and most important of all, education: the cornerstone of free existence. We have misled, corrupted, deceived, and demoralized the Goy youth by education along principles and theories known by us to be false but which we ourselves have inspired” (P9, p. 101). Self-evident.

A Blatant Double-Standard

The second half of the Protocols moves into a more future-oriented mode of discourse, explaining the coming social order when the Jewish Sovereign is in charge. Notably, many of the things that Jews promote today, under Goy rule, will be eliminated under Jewish rule; this is because they desire harmful and disruptive measures now, but will need relative peace and stability once in power. Double-standards are pervasive. Again, the only rule is “Jewry first.”

When we injected the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed; the states became infected with a mortal disease, namely, the decomposition of the blood. It is only necessary to await the end of their agony” (P10, p. 105). Jews have been leading forces in the push for unrestrained immigration, ‘open borders,’ and lax enforcement of visa rules. This was true in the US under several past presidents (Trump is something of an exception, although his actual success at routing out millions of illegals remains to be seen), and it is true of Europe, which has been flooded by at least 20 million Africans and Middle-Easterners since 2000. Racial mixing (“decomposition”) is good for the Goyim because it weakens their genetic integrity and identity; but it is bad for the Jews, who prohibit it by Jewish law.

To accomplish our plan, we will engineer the election of presidents whose past record contains some hidden scandal—then they will be faithful executors of our orders, for fear of exposure, and from a natural desire to retain the privileges, advantages, and dignity connected with the position of president” (P10, p. 106). Compare to the Protocol 8 passage cited above.

We must exhaust everyone by dissension, hostility, struggle, hatred, and even martyrdom, hunger, inoculation of diseases, and misery, so as to make the Goyim see no other solution than an appeal to our money and our total rule” (P10, p. 107). Self-evident.

“[W]e have already managed to subjugate the minds of the Goyim to such an extent that almost all of them see world-events through colored glasses that we put over their eyes…” (P12, p. 111). Thanks to Jewish control of the press, media, educational institutions, and entertainment industries.

All the periodicals published by us will seem to be of contradictory views and opinions, inviting trust in us, and thus appearing attractive to our unsuspecting enemies; in this way, they will be caught in our trap and made harmless. … [Of special importance] will be our ostensible opposition, which, at least in one of its publications, will represent the opposition to us. Our real enemies will mistake this seeming opposition as belonging to their own group, and thus will show us their cards. … Those fools who believe that they repeat the opinions expressed by ‘their’ newspapers will be repeating our opinions or those that we desire them to have” (P12, p. 112). This is an excellent description of the idea of ‘controlled opposition’ in press and politics. Jewish control extends to all media, and thus all media, ‘left’ and ‘right,’ are compatible with Jewish interests; consumers don’t see this influence and thus believe that ‘their’ media are honest and correct.

We will be able to persuade or confuse [the masses], sometimes printing the truth, sometimes lies, referring to facts or contradicting them, according to the way they are received by the public, and always carefully testing the ground before stepping on it. We will surely conquer our enemies because they will not have the press at their disposal in which to fully express themselves” (P12, p. 113). It is important for the Jews to have total control over media, otherwise the truth might slip out. No truly dissenting voices shall be allowed. Alternative media shall be sued, defunded, harassed, and ‘cancelled.’

To prevent [the masses] from reaching any independent decisions, we will divert their minds with amusements, games, hobbies, passions, and public cultural centers. We will soon begin to offer prize contests through the press, and sports of all kinds” (P13, p. 115). The over-hyped and over-commercialized nature of television and professional (and college!) sports is self-evident. Such pastimes serve to vent public anger and dissatisfaction, and distract again from the real problems and control mechanisms of society.

In the so-called advanced countries, we have created senseless, dirty, and disgusting literature” (P14, p. 118). Jews lead the charge in all aspects of pornography—print, film, and Internet. OnlyFans, Vixen Media, Grindr, Aylo/Pornhub, Vivid, and Gamma Entertainment are all Jewish-led or -owned porn distributors.

You have no idea how easy it is to bring even the most intelligent Goyim to a state of unconscious gullibility, and, on the other hand, how easy it is to discourage them by the smallest failure—or merely by ceasing to applaud them, thus enslaving them for the sake of achieving new success. To the same extent as our people ignore success for the sake of carrying out their plans, so are the Goyim ready to sacrifice all their plans for the sake of success. Their psychology makes the problem of direction easier for us. Those who appear to be tigers are as stupid as sheep; nonsense filters through their heads” (P15, p. 121). Comment unnecessary.

Our rule will simulate the God Vishnu, who resembles us physically; each of our hundred hands will hold one of the levers of the social machine” (P17, p. 129). Jews do indeed seem to be everywhere at once. There is scarcely an aspect of government or culture in which they do not have an active hand.

Through cleverly-compiled historical textbooks, we have indirectly given publicity to [political] martyrdom as though done for the sake of human welfare. Such an advertisement has multiplied the number of liberals and has swollen the ranks of our agents by thousands of Goyim” (P19, p. 133). Political rebels, agitators, ‘antifa,’ and so on—that is, those on the extreme radical left—serve as agents of Jewry. Such people believe themselves to be working for radical equality, radical justice, and radical freedom, but in the end they only further the Jewish cause.

In order to teach the people obedience, they must be taught modesty. And to accomplish this, the production of luxuries must be limited. [Once in power,] we will thus improve public morality, which has been demoralized by competition resulting from luxury” (P23, p. 143). Once again, rules for thee but not for me. Corrupting luxury abounds today, but will be greatly restrained when it serves the Jewish power structure.

I say once again that people blindly obey only the hand that is strong and entirely independent of them—the hand that wields a sword of defense against the blows of social misfortune. Why should the Sovereign have an angel’s heart? The people want to see in him the personification of power and might” (P23, p. 143). Present-day Israel, and Netanyahu in particular, fashion themselves as Jewish world-powers. In their actions against innocent and disarmed Palestinians, or against the innocent masses in Lebanon and Iran, Israeli Jews reveal themselves to be ruthless and brutal killers; they evidently believe that this shows “strength.” It rather shows them to be genocidal psychopaths, for which no punishment can be too harsh.

The New Elders

Who, then, are the specific individuals guiding “Israel” to its supposed future glory? Who are the new Elders of Zion?

Netanyahu and his immediate advisors are obvious candidates, and they indeed seem to play the role. Pathologically, they seem to believe that the nations of the world should, and will, bend to their will. They cajole, bully, bribe, and coerce other national leaders to serve their interests, often successfully. Trump in particular seems to be in Netanyahu’s back pocket; with all due bluster and hot air, Trump thrashes around wildly in his policy but, in the end, at least so far, seems to do essentially what the Jews want him to do.

But it is not only Netanyahu, of course. It is the entire Jewish power structure in America that also works on him, just as it worked on all past presidents. So who are these leading individuals, these American ‘power Jews,’ who function to implement the age-old plan of the Protocols?

Some names are obvious: We can start with the wealthiest Jews and those with the highest levels of political power. Above I cited by name the 13 richest Jews in America; they certainly count as modern-day Elders. But it is not merely the richest; there are at least 300 Jewish billionaires in the US, and it depends how active they are in trying to shape American, and global, society. Lesser billionaires can sometimes take a more active social/political role, typically because they are super-donors to the Democrats. Among these, I would include William Ackman, (net worth $9.1 billion), David Geffen ($9 billion), George Soros ($7.5 billion), Paul Singer ($6.7 billion), Stephen Mandel ($5 billion), and Tom Steyer ($2.5 billion).

In addition to the richest, there are those Jews in high positions within the federal government, some of whom are mere multimillionaires. Chuck Schumer, for example, wields significant political power but is worth only some $7 million. Other assertive Jewish senators include Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff (Bernie Sanders also makes this list, though he is, in some ways, an anti-elder). Then we have the most influential representatives: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Lois Frankl, Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, and Brad Sherman. Next, we may include the leading Jews in the Trump administration: Steve Witkoff, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, and Ron Lauder. And of course, we cannot fail to include Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

As a third general group of ‘new Elders,’ I would name those Jews who lead our major technology and media organizations. Above I cited six leading media Jews who certainly make the list. And some of the richest (cited already) are also tech or media leaders. In addition to the above, I would include Adam Mosseri (Instagram), Safra Catz (Oracle), Arthur Levinson (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Alex Karp (Palantir), Gary Cohn (IBM), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and Andy Jassy (Amazon).

As a fourth group, I will include Jews who lead powerful organizations within the U.S., by which I refer to Jonathan Greenblatt (ADL), Ted Deutch (American Jewish Committee), and Betsy Korn and William Daroff (Jewish Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations).

Finally, there is a group of miscellaneous Jews who wield power in various other ways. These individuals include political figures such as Rahm Emanuel (former Obama chief of staff), JB Pritzker (governor of Illinois), Josh Shapiro (governor of Pennsylvania), Douglas Emhoff (husband of Kamala Harris), and Josh Stein (governor of North Carolina). Also in this group, I would place film producers Steven Spielberg and (yes) Harvey Weinstein, who, at age 74, is incarcerated and faces ongoing litigation over his 100+ suspected sexual assaults but is still worth some $25 million and still influences events in Hollywood and beyond. I also include here the leading American representative of the infamous Rothschild family, Lynn Forester de Rothschild.[20] Lastly, a mix of various influential figures: Alan Dershowitz (lawyer), Seth Klarman (CEO of Baupost), Arthur Sulzberger (New York Times), David Solomon (Goldman Sachs), Steve Tisch (New York Giants football), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots football), Mark Cuban (minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball and co-founder of 2029 Entertainment), and Josh Kushner (LA Lakers basketball, and brother to Jared). In all, 66 individuals.[21]

Lest the reader lose track of all these names, here they are again, in alphabetical order:

There they are, 66 names: my nominees for the 2026 edition of the new Elders of Zion. Each one guaranteed to work on behalf of Jews and Israel, each guaranteed to put “Jewry first.” I’m sure each reader will have his or her own nominees, perhaps a much larger list; so be it. At least the discussion has begun.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] There are claims that the Protocols were written as early as 1818, but these are not credible. At least in final form, they must date to the late 1800s—though we cannot rule out that some early ‘proto-Protocols’ were drafted much earlier. The final document mentions Friedrich Nietzsche (Protocol 2) who only came to prominence after 1888; it mentions a French prime minister, Leon Bourgeois (Protocol 16), who served from 1895 to 1896; and it has two textual references to Zionism (Protocols 3 and 5), which did not exist in any meaningful sense until 1897. The final composition was certainly after these dates.

[2] The Jewish “homeland” of Israel would not come into being until 1948, thirty years after the Declaration. For the full story of the “contract with Jewry,” see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2025).

[3] A UN General Assembly vote, incidentally, has no force of law; that can only come from a Security Council vote, which did not happen. Technically, therefore, Israel was never legally authorized by the UN.

[4] Note that the “King of Israel” is mentioned four times in the text, but there, ‘Israel’ refers to the Jewish people, not the nation-state.

[5] Anthropology (1798/1978), p. 102.

[6] “The Age of Bronze.”

[7] Cited in Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” The Marx-Engels Reader (1978), p. 49.

[8] “Fate,” in Conduct of Life (1860).

[9] “Jewry in Music,” cited in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (2022), pp. 7-43.

[10] Cited in Classic Essays, p. 64.

[11] Cited in Classic Essays, pp. 95-124.

[12] The Land of Gilead (1880), p. 503.

[13] In The Jew in the Modern World (2011, Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, eds.), p. 315. Chapter One of Drumont’s book is reproduced in Classic Essays, pp. 125-146.

[14] Essays on the Questions of the Day (1894), p. 260.

[15] One man who did act on it was Henry Ford. He became aware of the Protocols around 1919 and was so impressed that it prompted him to initiate his famous “International Jew” series, which began in May 1920; see my published edition The International Jew: The Definitive Edition (2024; two volumes).

[16] See the white paper “The Jewish Vote,” by Gil Troy (2016).

[17] That is, Protocol #1, cited at page 77 of the above-mentioned edition of 2023.

[18] I won’t elaborate here; for details, see my book Eternal Strangers (2025).

[19] According to Louis McFadden, congressman from Pennsylvania, “Paul Warburg…engineered the Great Depression”—as stated in the Congressional Record of 1931. See One Honest Man (2026; Clemens & Blair).

[20] She is apparently a converted Jew, having married prominent Jew Andrew Stein in 1983 before marrying E. Robert de Rothschild in 2000.

[21] Jews attach much symbolic importance to the number six, so this is an appropriate total.

The Concept of the Impolitical

Paul Weber, 1951, “Rückgrat raus!” (Get the Spine Removed!) lithograph

When the political process degenerates into empty palaver—as is the case in the Liberal System—one might rightly call this process “impolitics.” There is no exact English equivalent for the French word “inpolitique,” a term coined by the political sociologist Julien Freund (1921–1993), a close associate of the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt. Widely used in French political theory, the term first appeared in Freund’s remarkable book Politique et impolitique ( 1987) (unfortunately never translated into English). Freund describes it thus: “the apolitical person is external to politics or takes no interest in it, whereas the impolitical person actively participates in political life but lacks judgment or skill in the exercise of his function, because he does not possess the sense of discernment.” One might simply say that impolitical decision-making is wishful thinking resulting in unintended, often catastrophic political results.

Impolitics is just one segment within a broader spectrum of counter-political concepts, including “antipolitics,” “transpolitics,” “infrapolitics,” and “patapolitics”—concepts widely used in French political theory. Beneath the mask of political processes, impoliticians hollow out authentic power politics, replacing them with hired experts preaching unintelligible administrative rules, using doublespeak, and delivering moralizing lectures. Impolitical decision-making among liberal politicians often uses as a cover the euphemism ‘governance.’

Politics implies the strict distinction between friend and foe, while impolitics represents a denial of any enmity. It thrives on grandstanding slogans rather than on a perception of objective political reality. Transpolitics goes hand in hand with impolitics—a term used by the late Jean Baudrillard to signal the end of politics altogether and its relegation to fictitious political scenarios. In books like Fatal Strategies, Baudrillard defines transpolitics through a simple paradox: “Everything is political; therefore, nothing is political anymore.” To this, in our modern digital era, we must add the pathology of ‘patapolitics’—a politician’s obsessive pursuit of imaginary solutions to crises, substituting political reality with algorithms and holograms. Hence the modern surge of self-proclaimed “experts” on social media and podcasts, including countless anonymous semiliterate individuals claiming to have unlocked the doors to the human predicament.

Patapolitics, as a segment of impolitics, captures absurd, imaginary scenarios in which algorithms and video games replace the politician’s search for answers on his cell phone. To cap it all off, impolitics often morphs into antipolitics, which signifies a rejection of the concept of the enemy and rests on the illusion that peace can be enforced by preaching good sermons—a common trait among US/EU leftists and DEI affirmative-action theorists. As Julien Freund points out, the key aspect of impolitics rests on the dangerous illusion that one can escape conflict by shrugging off the concept of the enemy. This is a deadly mistake. I do not need to choose my enemy; he will designate me as his enemy whether I like it or not. To put it more directly and closer to home: I may insist that I am not the enemy of Jews, yet it won’t help me if several Jewish agencies have already labeled me an antisemite. I may walk on all fours or bend over backwards with disclaimers that I am not a racist; it will still do me no good if hostile outgroups or individuals have already labeled me as a racist.

How do our modern politicians fit into the category of impolitics? One might suspect that President Donald Trump embodies to some extent an impolitical phenomenon. Despite the fact that he has strong intentions and undeniably some positive political instincts—such as his pardon of January 6 activists and closing down the border—in foreign affairs he appears trapped in a world crafted by his heroic delusions and/or dishonest advisers. Moreover, his political decisions are driven more by his business mindset than by some knowledge of the classics, ultimately stripping him of any grasp of the historical or political context. Instead, his transactional approach in foreign affairs frequently results in sudden reversals of his initial decisions—leaving both his supporters and his foes stunned, speechless, and searching for meaning.

When impolitics mixes with modern “videopolitics,” fake news floods everywhere—from daily news headlines to history books, especially when loaded with ideological narratives and surreal victimhoods. Add round-the-clock mediatization across a multitude of social platforms, and politics loses its meaning entirely. Politics becomes a farce: a grand spectacle in which mutual trust collapses and careerists and yes-men occupy the halls of power. Unlike sober-faced tragic figures such as Washington, Jefferson, or Bismarck, today’s leaders are perforce nothing more than clowns. On television and social media, they seem more focused on their dental implants than on the promotion of the common good. When one observes the body language of EU commissioners and their counterparts on both the left and the right in local parliaments, the conclusion writes itself: the West is finished—and this also marks the final death knell for the Liberal Order.

One can surely learn more about the danger of liberal impolitics by reading the classics than by studying all the political science treatises. The script of impolitics and patapolitics comes alive in Alice’s journey through Wonderland. Alice’s patapolitical wonderland features absurd rules where official power runs entirely on nonsensical syllogisms. Alice finds herself in a chaotic courtroom where the Knave of Hearts is on trial for stealing tarts. As the King attempts to run the proceedings, the Queen of Hearts completely skips due process and shouts, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards!” This was the author’s unintended blueprint for studying the later Soviet judiciary—and today’s liberal lawfare and its court proceedings against dissidents. This graphic gap between political reality and delusion is best illustrated in the work of German artist Paul Weber. His lithographs mercilessly satirize turncoats, spineless zealots, and citizens falling prey to grandstanding ideas or embracing new dogmas the moment the historical moment becomes ripe. Yet Weber had a hard time: disliked by National Socialist Germany, he was subsequently sidelined and distrusted by post-WWII Anglo-American world-improvers in occupied Germany..

Off, from, and for politics…

This brings up a classic dilemma: Should one trust politicians who live off politics, or those who live for politics? Trump is an idealist of sorts; to his credit, he did not need foreign money to launch his first campaign—unlike countless politicians whose entry into Congress or the EU establishment relies on the financial backing of powerful pressure groups. And in his second term he has transformed into the grifter-in-chief. Without rehashing Max Weber’s century-old theories, the tension between living off or for politics remains as vivid as ever. Many White nationalists and right-wingers—justifiably disillusioned with mainstream political lies—act as idealists fighting for a good cause, though their leaders, once in office, may turn out to be the exact opposite of what they expected. On the other hand, the majority of politicians in the EU and US political arena live off politics. They are opportunists who change their tune the moment a new political-cultural fashion arrives. Yet that very opportunism may offer a strange silver lining: they are less likely to start mass purges when a new order sets in, preferring to rebrand themselves as pragmatic realists.

Sometimes it is good to have a debauched and super-wealthy ruler presiding, because some of his wealth and lax mores may beneficially spill over to the poor. An ultra-modest politician can be lethal. The proto-communist revolutionary and lawyer Maximilien Robespierre lived a frugal, Spartan life, which did not prevent him from launching a widespread and lethal Reign of Terror in France. The nationalist Adolf Hitler was a modest man from a modest Austrian family, a strict vegetarian and early riser, yet his career ended in European chaos. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, a famous Stoic celebrated by modern scholars as the very incarnation of the philosopher-king was known for his honesty and virtue; yet it is likely that Marcus Aurelius carried some recessive criminal genes, which he passed on to his son Commodus, one of Rome’s cruelest and most perverted tyrants. Seneca is still widely praised for his profound Stoic wisdom on moderation, yet his lofty philosophy of Stoicism did not prevent him from becoming the richest man in the Roman Empire.

This glaring contradiction exposes the ultimate all-too-human gap between preaching a multicultural society from an ivory tower and actually living it in real life. The communist Che Guevara lived simply and frugally, refusing personal glory in early revolutionary Cuba, yet his legacy keeps sparking daily Antifa thuggery across Europe and the USA. The list goes on.

When discussing impolitics, one inevitably comes upon great authors such as François de La Rochefoucauld, who observed that “what men call friendship is only a social traffic, a mutual exchange of interests, and a trade in which self-love always expects to gain something.” Much later in America a sharp observer, Ambrose Bierce went even further in denouncing the devilish nature of democracy, defining an elector as “one who enjoys the sacred privilege of voting for the man of another man’s choice.” Following the exhaustion of post-communist transitions in Eastern Europe, the populace is now growing sick of the liberal capitalist experiment and their corrupted elites. A deep current of nostalgia for order and a strong hand persists all over Europe and the US, making it only a matter of time before a breaking point hits us all. But what comes next? Ultimately, what difference does it make when one set of thieves loses their seats if the halls of power are simply refilled with more of the same? Plus ça change…

Return of the Troubles? The New IRA and Its Anti-Immigrant Focus

Anyone who grew up in the British Isles from the 1970s to the 1990s will understand what is meant by “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, and will know that the IRA stands for the Irish Republican Army. From at least 1969 until 1998, this Catholic paramilitary organization was the leading cause of terrorism in the UK, using bombs, punishment beatings, and targeted assassinations. The IRA were backed by their political masters in Sinn Féin. The name “Sinn Féin” means “ourselves”, or “we ourselves”, and they had common cause with the IRA against the British, particularly in the 1970s. The IRA was routinely referred to as “the provisional wing of Sinn Féin”, often shortened to “the Provos”. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were the famous political figureheads of Sinn Féin, the Reverend Ian Paisley the loudest voice on the Loyalist side. It was a bad time for the Emerald Isle.

Then, this paramilitary outfit began to evolve. The Provisional IRA became the Continuity IRA, then the Real IRA, then broke from the old guard completely in 1997, merging with an organization called Republican Action Against Drugs in 2012 to form the New IRA. This in itself was an interesting merger, as the original IRA were known to raise funds by selling drugs. But the IRA under any name have been fairly quiet since the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998, at least compared with the height of The Troubles.

The GFA was partly political theater on the part of Tony Blair, keen to be viewed as a peacemaker early into his tenure as Prime Minister. Perhaps he had already planned his “sexed-up” Iraq document on Saddam’s non-existent WMD (which drew the UK into the Iraq War), gauged the likely effect on his legacy, and wished to pre-empt it. But that is for another day. The GFA was hailed as peace in our time but, true to Blair’s signature style of politicking, it is a slippery document.

The GFA knitted three political and geographical bodies together: The Northern Ireland Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council. It has kept the peace, more or less, for over a quarter of a century, but that peace is theoretically a fragile one. No one policy instrument defines the role and status of Northern Ireland, but the aggregate legislation states that they have to live together with southern Ireland, or Éire, and the British, and any public disagreement is permissible under the terms of this union of political entities. The aim was union, of course, political if not geographical, but there was a sub-textual purpose to this new triumvirate; to take away the core mission of the IRA and stop the violence. And, despite isolated terrorist incidents, the peace has held. Until now, perhaps.

In July of this year, a 25-year-old law student called Isabella Perrie-Sullivan was arrested by police attempting to cross the Irish border northwards with 25 pounds of explosives in a bag in her car. The arrest was the culmination of intelligence which indicated dissident action following the pattern of that associated with the IRA. The IRA had some of the best bomb-makers in the world. These weren’t Muslims with backpacks that fizzle but fail to explode, or Baader-Meinhof clowns blowing themselves up. These were experts. A bombing campaign with this level of expertise could kill a lot of people. This year, the New IRA have already attacked two Northern Irish police stations with car-bombs. The old Republican mission statement to rid Ireland of the British, and thus to attack Loyalists, is assumed still to be in place, but a new theory as to the New IRA’s intentions in a changed world is slowly forming.

The New IRA may no longer have the British in their sights directly, but instead allegedly have a new target: immigrants. The statistics coming out of Ireland, despite the best efforts of the Irish government to hide or distort them, are sobering. It is estimated that 25% of the population of Éire, are now immigrants. Of the seven women murdered south of the border in the first half of this year, six were killed by migrants. These acts of violence are only part of the story. The Irish are becoming aware that their entire culture is being changed by design. It is becoming apparent with every new atrocity that the Irish are becoming more aware that they are a chapter of the Great Replacement. So, where does the New IRA come in?

The video which has kicked this wasps’ nest purports to be by the New IRA and features another aspect which will alert and alarm the Irish government in that it is not single-issue. The balaclava-clad speaker, flanked by armed comrades, makes it clear that the influx of migrants is their main driver:

 “To the people of Newry, Mourne and Down: we, the New Republican Movement, have watched our councillors and MLAs over the past 12 months.

​“The level of disrespect shown to the people who put you into power, this cannot be ignored any longer.

​“We are proud men of Ireland, we are patriots.

“Your policies and decision-making regards to flooding our communities with undocumented military-aged men is not acceptable.

​“We will not sit back any longer and watch our culture and religion destroyed by the people we put in power.

​“Also the sexual indoctrination of our children in schools has not went unnoticed either.

​“The New Republican Movement will take immediate action against anyone who threatens our way of life and the safety of our women and children.

​“We have your addresses and know your movements.

“Every one of you are legitimate targets as of today.

“The New Republican Movement, 28th of the 11th, 2025.”

It comes weeks after a video was circulated on X purporting to show a different Irish republican right-wing group, the Irish Citizen Army, which also depicted three men in front of a tricolour delivering a similar anti-immigration message.

“Andrew” posted a video on August 3. He is an ex-intelligence operative who speaks of the reputation the IRA had with the British Army, who saw them as “not just formidable, but unbeatable”. As with all major terrorist groups, the IRA were a many-headed hydra which presented the British Army with two major and paradoxical problems. Arrest or kill them and they create martyrs to the cause, powerful fuel for terrorists. Read the story of hunger-striker Bobby Sands, who died in 1981. Fail to stop the “Rah”, as the IRA were known colloquially, and the bombs keep going off. A top IRA operative once famously said that, while the British needed to get lucky every day to stop the Republicans, the IRA only had to get lucky once. The IRA’s soldiers were known to be efficient, ruthless, and incredibly violent. If they turn their attentions to migrants, it will be the worse for those who supposedly “just want a better life”.

Cynics might suggest that the IRA attempting to rid Ireland of migrants the way St. Patrick was said to have cast out the nation’s snake population serves a further purpose, and this concerns the British. Any migrants forced out of Ireland can only go to mainland Britain, unless the people-smuggling gangs have an inflatable which will make it across the Atlantic. They are likely to stay there. This will appeal to those in the New IRA who retain the animus of the old IRA, as it will put England in particular in the grip of a pincer movement of immigration. Events in the autonomous Spanish city of Ceuta, which has become a holding-pen for tens of thousands of immigrants wanting to enter mainland Europe, is another threat to the UK, as many of those migrants want to get to Britain. Recently, some would go on to Northern Ireland, walk across the porous and largely unguarded border to the south, and thus re-enter the Schengen Zone of the EU. If this border becomes manned by men in balaclavas carrying AK-47s, it would no longer be a viable route. These men would be unlikely to have had much DEI training, but they will know how to shoot to kill.

The return of the IRA would put the Irish government in a precarious position. Having shown themselves unwilling to take action against migrant criminals, if they suddenly took swift decisive action against actual Irishmen, they run the risk of starting a genuine civil war. But if they back off, they run a different type of risk, that age-old religious divisions might heal, or at least hostilities may be suspended. Then, if the wider populace sees that the IRA are expelling immigrants where the government clearly had no intention of doing so, that is a powerful win for the Republicans.

All of this could be a hoax, a ruse, or the work of mischief-makers. But the Irish government will know that it could be the real thing and, even if the New IRA is not planning to target migrants, it may inspire others to do so. The recent near-decapitation and blinding of a disabled man in Belfast, allegedly by a Sudanese immigrant, led to nights of rioting reminiscent of 1969, when Catholics and Protestants fought each other and the PSNI (Police Service Northern Ireland). Syndicated news sources wrote that “The New IRA are plotting to capitalize on tensions around migration and could use the anxieties to launch an intimidation campaign against vulnerable communities”. The way this is framed implies that these anxieties and tensions are somehow groundless but evades the obvious point that it is the native Irish who are currently feeling like a vulnerable community. Irish YouTubers such as No Risk No Reward, County Gains, Derek Domino, and Peter Dooley Dublin report on almost daily attacks and sexual assaults on Irish people.

The phrase “the fighting Irish” is well-founded. From the battles of 1916, Michael Collins and his colleagues, and The Irish Citizen Army, Irishmen — and women — will not simply roll over as the populations of Europe have done, and a possible knock-on effect of any anti-migrant action taken by the New IRA will be giving British government ministers sleepless nights. The British may be inspired by any Republican action and follow suit. Danny Tommo is an anti-immigration activist reportedly holding training camps for young, White, Englishmen, and is actively recruiting. Despite the government’s boast that it is moving immigrants out of hotels, these military-age men are actually being moved into disused army facilities. They are, quite literally, being barracked.

In many ways, parts of England are now under occupation every bit as real as that which inspired the Irish Republican Army. There may be no troops on the streets of London or Birmingham, and armored patrol vehicles are nowhere to be seen, at least not yet. But shops are filling high streets which are clearly being used to launder money, pubs and churches are closing, with many having been the subject of planning applications and intended to become mosques, and ever-increasing crime, particularly against women (almost unbelievably, an elderly was allegedly raped recently in the UK by a migrant). Occupation by an invading force creates resistance — a historical given. In middle-class areas, to which the government is turning to house illegal immigrants, many of whom no one knows anything about, the British government know that a few hundred residents in a leafy village will offer no resistance. They will be middle-class and probably voted Green or Liberal Democrat, so Labour are in no danger of losing votes by enraging the locals.

The new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is already proving that, when it comes to word salad, he is a master-chef. The phrase “political rhetoric” is regularly misused in the UK media to mean “language” or “vocabulary”, but classical rhetoric was far more sophisticated than simply explaining how to use a dictionary. Rhetoric deals with how language is employed in order to obtain desired effects in the audience. Aristotle puts it most clearly in his Rhetoric:

It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion.

Burnham has so far managed to avoid serious press scrutiny, but on the rare occasions he is pinned down, what comes out of his mouth — apart from lyrics by The Smiths — is pure filler. The art of political speaking now is largely concerned with how to take up time while saying nothing of substance, and Burnham has this down to a fine art. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview, in which the PM is asked about the concerns of residents in a small English town called Piddington, population around 350, who are about to have a migrant camp housing 1,200 young Muslim men placed in the center of a town so small it still qualifies as a “hamlet”:

Well, I have begun to become aware of the campaign in Piddington, and I am absolutely prepared to meet Rex [a seven-year-old boy who wrote to the PM warning of the effects of the new camp].  I will listen to what people are saying and respond to the concerns they are putting forward. I don’t know the issue yet in detail, but in some ways, as I understand it, it is about creating a secure space. … It’s obviously going to be challenging, but I am prepared to listen…

On and on it goes, and I won’t subject you to all of it. It is meaningless drivel dressed up as managerial expertise. But there was one short section that repays inspection:

We cannot have a situation where it’s only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum-seekers. I do believe all parts of the country need to work to play their part. It’s a challenging issue … and I will look into the issues for the good people of Piddington.

Play their part. It’s almost as though this was a dramatic production, complete with writer and director. Anna Turley is the Government Minister responsible for the invasion force still referred to as “asylum seekers”. As with almost all politicians, she is keen to tell us what her government’s policy is “about”, and Burnham’s stated intention to disperse immigrants to small rural areas is apparently “about fairness”. Small, tightly knit white communities must, she says, take their “fair share” of aggressive, military-age Muslim men, some of whom statistically will be rapists and murderers. We are all aware of what fairness is: equality of opportunity, where appropriate and conducive to the social good. Freedom for all, for example, seems fair, but if that extends to violent criminals, then it becomes unfair to those put at risk by the freedom of those with a predisposition to violence. That is another subject, and no less relevant than immigration, but the idea that there is a “fair share” in terms of violent invaders — often placed near children’s schools — will be difficult for the “good people of Piddington” to process.

Burnham also mentions that he will “address legitimate concerns”, implying that there will be illegitimate concerns. These will probably take the form of social media commentary for which even more White English people will be jailed. But although Burnham has buried his core message in meaningless verbal slop, what he has said is very important for its inevitable consequences. The peasants have revolted before in England, and I refer you to 1381. Now it may be time for a middle-class revolution, and it may be that violent action taken by an Irish band of men everyone thought had faded into history could convert an awful lot of people to the idea of direct action.

The British government has just extended contractual arrangements with various property companies which will ensure that immigration will continue until 2039. There are two important implications of this long-term plan. The first is the simple economic pledge. Immigration is costing the UK a fortune. Many fortunes. What will the compound be like 13 years hence? Secondly, this is more deliberate provocation. And the action of provocation often produces an equal and opposite reaction.

There might be a name for the toleration of illegal violence if it serves to protect ordinary people. London’s most notorious criminals, the Kray Twins, were loved by many residents in the east end of London because they kept peace on the streets and in the houses. They protected ordinary people from crime in a way the police could not do. A burglar today would not think twice today about breaking and entering, not with the state of British policing. But if they knew that Ron and Reg would staple their hands to a snooker table with kitchen knives if they caught them, it’s a lot more of a deterrent than a suspended jail sentence. If the New IRA can provide the same level of violent, ruthless protection to the ordinary, innocent white Irish, they may become just as revered. In Dublin, there are migrants in tents camped beneath statues of Irish rebel heroes who fought for Irish freedom, and these symbolic occupations are not going unnoticed.

One of many ironies about this simmering situation is the role of Sinn Féin. Affiliations have changed since the IRA were known as the “provisional wing” of the party. One nickname for the IRA was “the Provos”. Now, Sinn Féin are all for unlimited immigration, and they have gone from being the IRA’s effective employer to being the enemy. They will be nervous, as the IRA didn’t just blow up random civilians and kneecap informers with power-tools. They killed MP Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten, then five more people in 1984 — including another MP — at Brighton Hotel in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher. Also in 1984, the IRA famously bombed Harrod’s, London’s famous department store in which I was working at the time the 80lb car-bomb went off, killing six (including three police officers) and wounding 86 others.

The Troubles were one of the ugliest chapters in Irish history, and there were violent and ruthless men both on the Republican side, and that of their Loyalist/British enemy. My father was a documentary filmmaker for The Ministry of Defence in the 1970s. Filming in Belfast, he was spoken to by an SAS commander and given clear rules as to what he could and could not record. He pointed at Dad’s cameraman’s equipment, then patted his own Armalite rifle. “If that goes off in my direction”, he said, “this goes off in yours”. What may be coming may not be The Troubles 2.0, but it may trigger something equally violent.

Secret Semitic Censorship: How a Miniature Masterwork Was Perhaps Muzzled by Metus Judæorum

“If you read it once, you’ll remember it for ever.” I can’t say that of most short stories I’ve read. But I can definitely say that of “What Was It?” (1859). It’s the most famous story by the boozing and brawling Irish-American writer Fitz-James O’Brien (1826-62). In a few thousand words, O’Brien wove deep mystery, tragedy and horror around an alien creature with only three certain characteristics. Two of them are that it’s humanoid and malevolent. And what is the third? Well, that’s described by the narrator after he’s attacked by the creature one night in “the most profound darkness” of a bedroom. In a fierce struggle he manages to subdue it. And then, naturally enough, he wants to see what’s attacked him:

Never losing my hold for an instant, I slipped from the bed to the floor, dragging my captive with me. I had but a few steps to make to reach the gas-burner; these I made with the greatest caution, holding the creature in a grip like a vice. At last I got within arm’s-length of the tiny speck of blue light which told me where the gas-burner lay. Quick as lightning I released my grasp with one hand and let on the full flood of light. Then I turned to look at my captive.

I cannot even attempt to give any definition of my sensations the instant after I turned on the gas. I suppose I must have shrieked with terror, for in less than a minute afterward my room was crowded with the inmates of the house. I shudder now as I think of that awful moment. I saw nothing! Yes; I had one arm firmly clasped round a breathing, panting, corporeal shape, my other hand gripped with all its strength a throat as warm, and apparently fleshly, as my own; and yet, with this living substance in my grasp, with its body pressed against my own, and all in the bright glare of a large jet of gas, I absolutely beheld nothing! Not even an outline,—a vapor! (“What Was It?,” 1859)

Yes, the creature is humanoid, malevolent, and completely invisible. This is the first appearance of a literary trope that would be taken up by much more famous authors in much more famous works like H.G. Wells’ novel The Invisible Man (1897) and Guy de Maupassant’s short-story “Le Horla” (1887). Maupassant died tragically young like O’Brien himself and like Edgar Allan Poe, a big influence on O’Brien. But Maupassant and Poe have never lost the huge fame they acquired in their short lives. O’Brien wasn’t hugely famous even during life and might be forgotten now if it weren’t for three miniature masterworks, his three best short-stories. The first and most famous is “What Was It?,” followed by “The Diamond Lens” (1858) and “The Wondersmith” (1859).

Books by a boozing brawler: Two collections of Fitz-James O’Brien’s stories

Those three stories continued to appear in anthologies and genre collections, keeping O’Brien’s name alive down the decades. But I’d read only “What Was It?” when I picked up Fantastic Tales, a welcome new collection of O’Brien’s stories published in 2025. Now I’ve read and rated “The Diamond Lens” and “The Wondersmith” too. How did I rate them? Well, “The Diamond Lens” is in some ways even more imaginative and memorable than “What Was It?.” It’s about another strange and symbolically seductive creature. But this one is beautiful, not malevolent, and appears not in a dark bedroom but in a drop of water.

I won’t say any more, because I recommend that you read the story for yourself and see how Fitz-James O’Brien is much less famous than he deserves to be. But I will say more about O’Brien’s story “The Wondersmith,” because I think it’s an example of something that’s also much less famous than it deserves to be. Or rather: much less infamous than it deserves to be. And what is that? It’s what you might call S.S.C. — Secret Semitic Censorship. The full story of Jewish censorship has never been told and never will be, because most of it has taken place in secret and without publicity. Jewish gatekeepers in journalism, publishing, academia and politics have squashed stories, suppressed facts, silenced crime-thinkers long before the gentile general public could glimpse the toxic truth. But even more Semitic censorship may have been indirect, carried out not by Jews themselves but by gentiles intimidated by metus Judæorum.

Lost in mistranslation

Metus Judæorum is a Latin phrase that strikes a repeated ominous note in the Evangelium secundum Johannem or the Gospel of John. In rather earlier Greek it runs ὁ φόβος τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ho phobos tōn Ioudaiōn, and in much later English it runs like this:

7:13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus.

20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (See The Gospel of John at Bible Hub)

Ironically enough, some modern translators of the New Testament are motivated by ho phobos tōn Ioudaiōn when they mistranslate that very phrase as “fear of the Jewish leaders” and “fear of the Jewish authorities” or the even weaselier “fear of the leaders” and “fear of the authorities.” Jews have long condemned the New Testament as “anti-Semitic” and blamed it for inspiring the millennia of persecution and pogroms that culminated in the horrors of the Holocaust. That’s why they’ve striven mightily to replace Christianity with Israelism and Holocaustianity, and that’s why modern translators are frightened to translate simple Greek as equally simple English.[1]

A Christophobic Conspiracy

But it could be worse for Jews. Linguistic change has obscured in English a clear and obviously deliberate connection made by the Gospel in Greek and Latin, where “Judas” and “Jews” are Ioudas / Ioudaioi and Judas / Judæi, respectively. In the Gospel of John, malevolent, demon-driven Judas is meant to personify the malevolent, demon-driven Jews. That was in the 1st century A.D. But you can find the same themes – metus Judæorum, “fear of the Jews,” and malevolentia Judæorum, “Jewish malevolence” – in the 19th century A.D. and Fitz-James O’Brien’s story “The Wondersmith.” Or rather, you can’t find them, because the metus has censored the malevolentia. That’s what I’d claim, anyway. See if you agree with my reasoning.

“The Wondersmith” is a highly imaginative and logophilic story of a conspiracy to defile Christmas and kill Christian children using magically animated toys with poisoned weapons. Does that conspiracy sound Jewish to you? It does to me. The chief conspirator is the Wondersmith of the title, who owns a shop in the Lower Manhattan district of New York. He’s called Herr Hippe and has three co-conspirators: Kerplonne from France, who’s a maker of artificial eyes; Madame Filomel, a fortune-teller also from France; and Oaksmith from England, whose profession is never revealed. The four conspirators belong to the same alien race, which is mentioned by Herr Hippe when he gloats over their conspiracy and the “manikins” he has made to fulfil it:

“I long to test them,” cried the Wondersmith, rubbing his hands joyfully. “I long to see how the little devils will behave when I give them their shapes. Ah! it will be a proud day for us when we let them loose upon the cursed Christian children! Through the length and breadth of the land they will go; wherever our wandering people set foot, and wherever they are, the children of the Christians shall die. Then we, the despised Bohemians, the gypsies, as they call us, will be once more lords of the earth, as we were in the days when the accursed things called cities did not exist, and men lived in the free woods and hunted the game of the forest. Toys indeed! Ay, ay, we will give the little dears toys! toys that all day will sleep calmly in their boxes, seemingly stiff and wooden and without life,—but at night, when the souls [supplied by black magic] enter them, will arise and surround the cots of the sleeping children, and pierce their hearts with their keen, envenomed blades! Toys indeed! oh, yes! I will sell them toys!” […]

“Good!” cried Kerplonne, rubbing his hands joyously. “It is close upon New Year’s Day. We will fabricate millions of the little murderers by New Year’s Even, and sell them in large quantities; and when the households are all asleep, and the Christian children are waiting for Santa Claus to come, the small ones will troop from their boxes and the Christian children will die. It is famous! Health to Abigor!”[2] (“The Wondersmith”, 1859)

So the four conspirators are described as “gypsies” in the story. But they’re not behaving or talking like Gypsies. No, they’re behaving and talking like Jews. First of all, Gypsies were not prominent in the United States at the time of the story and especially not in New York. But Jews were prominent, especially in New York. Further, the hand-rubbing Herr Hippe and Kerplonne are educated and eloquent (the “Abigor” saluted by Kerplonne is a pseudo-Hebraic “demon of soldiery” in medieval magic). Gypsies were not associated with education and eloquence. But Jews were. Okay, Gypsies were indeed associated with fortune-telling and black magic like Madame Filomel, but Jews too were associated with black magic. Gypsies had never been associated with shopkeeping, manufacture and commerce like Herr Hippe and Kerplonne. Jews were certainly associated with those three things. There was no tradition in Europe or America about Gypsies despising Christianity and seeking to murder Christian children.[3] But there was certainly a tradition of that about Jews. And there was no tradition about Gypsies using poison and subterfuge against their enemies. But again, there was certainly a tradition of that about Jews. Finally, the megalomaniacal claim to be once and future “lords of the earth” was not associated with Gypsies. But it was certainly associated with Jews (and still is). Here’s some more from “The Wondersmith,” a description of the conspirators poisoning the toys, then gloating over the coming slaughter:

The anointing of the [toys’] swords [with deadly poison] went on rapidly, and the wine went as rapidly down the throats of the four poisoners. Their faces grew more and more inflamed each instant; their eyes shone like rolling fireballs; their hair was moist and dishevelled. The old fortune-teller rocked to and fro in her chair, like those legless plaster figures that sway upon convex loaded bottoms. All four began to mutter incoherent sentences, and babble unintelligible wickednesses. Still the anointing of the swords went on.

“I see the faces of millions of young corpses,” babbled Herr Hippe, gazing, with swimming eyes, into the silver bowl that contained the Macousha poison,—“all young, all Christians,—and the little fellows dancing, dancing, and stabbing, stabbing[!]” (“The Wondersmith”)

The Christophobia and gloating do not sound Gypsy: they sound Jewish. Gypsies were associated with petty theft, not with grand conspiracies to slaughter Christians and rule the world. Nor were Gypsies associated with the destruction of beauty and the cruel killing of animals. But Jews were associated with both and the conspirators in “The Wondersmith” want to test the murderous manikins. So they sneak into the shop of a goy called Pippel and set the manikins loose on his stock. Pippel is a bird-fancier from Germany and this is what his shop looks like before the conspirators have taken great satisfaction in “[saving] alive nothing that breatheth” there:

It was a little world of birds. On every side, whether in large or small cages, one beheld balls of various-colored feathers standing on one leg and breathing peacefully. Love-birds, nestling shoulder to shoulder, with their heads tucked under their wings and all their feathers puffed out, so that they looked like globes of malachite; English bullfinches, with ashen-colored backs, in which their black heads were buried, and corselets of a rosy down; Java sparrows, fat and sleek and cleanly; troupials, so glossy and splendid in plumage that they looked as if they were dressed in the celebrated armor of the Black Prince, which was jet, richly damascened with gold; a cock of the rock, gleaming, a ball of tawny fire, like a setting sun; the Campanero of Brazil, white as snow, with his dilatable tolling-tube hanging from his head, placid and silent;—these, with a humbler crowd of linnets, canaries, robins, mocking-birds, and phoebes, slumbered calmly in their little cages, that were hung so thickly on the wall as not to leave an inch of it visible.

“Splendid little morsels, all of them!” exclaimed Monsieur Kerplonne. “Ah, we are going to have a rare beating!” […]

“Come,” said the Wondersmith, producing the box of manikins, “get ready with souls, Madame Filomel. I am impatient to see my little men letting out lives for the first time.” (“The Wondersmith”)

Pippel from Germany loves and nurtures birds; Herr Hippe, also from Germany, despises and kills birds. Is Pippel meant to represent goyim and Hippe Jews? After all, Pippel sounds like “people” and goyim literally means “peoples,” being the plural form of Hebrew goy, “a non-Jewish people or race.” A logophile like Fitz-James O’Brien would surely have known that. I can’t see any obvious parallel wordplay in the name Hippe, but it does remind me of “hip-hooray,” which comes from earlier “hep-hooray.” Apocryphally, “Hep! Hep!” was the cry of the Christian mobs that attacked Jewish ghettos in the Middle Ages and later. It was supposed to be an acronym for Hierosolyma Est Perdita, “Jerusalem Is Lost” – that is, lost to Christians by Jews conspiring with Muslims.

Again, Fitz-James O’Brien very probably knew that story about the origin of “Hip-hooray.” He certainly knew the origin of the word “ghetto,” as he makes clear in the opening paragraph of “The Wondersmith.” That’s where he describes the scene of Herr Hippe’s shop and the Christophobic conspiracy:

A small lane, the name of which I have forgotten, or do not choose to remember, slants suddenly off from Chatham Street [in Lower Manhattan], (before that headlong thoroughfare reaches into the Park,) and retreats suddenly down towards the East River, as if it were disgusted with the smell of old clothes, and had determined to wash itself clean. This excellent intention it has, however, evidently contributed towards the making of that imaginary pavement [the highway to Hell] mentioned in the old adage; for it is still emphatically a dirty street. It has never been able to shake off the Hebraic taint of filth which it inherits from the ancestral thoroughfare. It is slushy and greasy, as if it were twin brother of the Roman Ghetto. (“The Wondersmith”)

The “Roman Ghetto” was the Jewish district in Rome, named after the Jewish ghetto in Venice. And I think that O’Brien’s opening paragraph is like the “gills” on a human embryo.[4] It’s an unmistakable clue to what was originally there: the development of the embryo into a fish; the expansion of “The Wondersmith” into a story about Jews, not about Gypsies. If the story was originally about Gypsies, why did O’Brien set it in a district of New York strongly associated with Jews? And why did he describe the district as smelling old clothes at a time when Jews were associated with selling used clothing? Why did he talk about the Jewish district of Rome and the “Hebraic taint of filth”? It doesn’t make sense. But it makes perfect sense if the story was originally about Jews and then re-written to be about Gypsies. The opening paragraph also makes perfect sense if O’Brien wanted to tell his readers Lisez le blanc, lisez ce que je n’ai pas écrit et ce qui y est pourtant — “Read the white, read what I did not write and what is there nonetheless.”

Creditors and editors

After all, O’Brien was certainly anti-Semitic. How else do you explain a phrase like “the Hebraic taint of filth”? That taint is inherited “from the ancestral thoroughfare,” the street where Jews specialized in the used-garment trade in New York just as they did in London and Paris. I think O’Brien was using streets as symbols: the “ancestral thoroughfare” is the ancient Jewish hatred of Christians and Christianity, which is still active in the off-slanting “lane” of the Jewish presence in contemporary America.

But O’Brien was doubtless well-acquainted with Jews long before he lived in America. He was born in County Cork, Ireland, then lived in London and likely visited Paris several times to use his fluent French. Having squandered his large inheritance, he next set off to find fame and new fortune in America. He did win some fame as a writer but never made a second fortune. He was born Irish and remained faithful wherever he roamed to the great Irish traditions of boozing and brawling. Michael Hayes, the editor of the new collection of O’Brien’s stories, describes what happened after O’Brien arrived in America in 1851:

In the next eleven years, O’Brien was to produce a mass of writing — poetry, plays, stories, essays, satires, criticism and journalism. He had to. He invariably lived beyond his means, often drank to excess, borrowed from Peter to pay Paul, and generally led a Bohemian existence. He dashed off stories and poems to settle his rent and placate impatient creditors. Hard times were his constant companion. It was also said that you were not considered his friend unless he had fought with you. In fact, he was kind to an extreme, well loved and a lively, amusing companion — at times truculent, at other times gentle and delightful. He never failed to enjoy a good fight. (Fantastic Tales, Fitz-James O’Brien, Alma Classics 2025, introduction by Michael Hayes, p. viii)

It’s highly probable that those “impatient creditors” included some Jews. And Jews almost certainly edited some of the magazines and newspapers O’Brien wrote for. If so, O’Brien may have reacted to Jewish creditors and editors like many writers before him and since: with distaste, irritation, and a desire to get his own back by satirizing Jews in print.

A Fantastic Fraction

Charles Dickens was one of the earlier writers who reacted like that to Jews, as I’ve described in “Minority Malice: The Curious Case of Daniel Quilp.” Saki and M.R. James were two of the later writers, as I’ve also described at the Occidental Observer. But have I described the same kind of writer in this article? Was “The Wondersmith” really aimed by Fitz-James O’Brien at Jews?

I believe it was and I’d predict there’s more hating on Hebrews by O’Brien in the “mass of writing” mentioned in that introduction to Fantastic Tales. Only a fraction of his writing is collected in the book, but the fraction proves that O’Brien was a very good writer and strongly suggests in “The Wondersmith” that he knew the Jew. So I heartily recommend Fantastic Tales to any aficionado of fantasy and horror. What’s true of “What Was It?” is true of the whole book: If you read it once, you’ll remember it for ever.


[1] Well, I say “simple Greek,” but in fact Ioudaioi doesn’t mean what “Jews” has come to mean. For further discussion, please see my article “Survival or Suicide: Italy Will Follow Meloni’s Melody, not the Schlein Whine.”

[2] Abigor is a powerful demonic entity primarily documented in the 16th and 17th-century grimoires (most prominently those related to the Solomonic tradition). He is a Great Duke of Hell who commands up to 60 infernal legions. The demon is typically associated with the power to foretell the future (especially in war) and to secure favor with military commanders. That’s why his counsel was explicitly sought in matters of war and generalship. He is also one of the demons that grant command and bestow martial knowledge upon the summoner.

[3] Gypsies were rumored to steal non-Jewish children, not murder them.

[4]  Strictly speaking, the “gills” on an embryo are pharyngeal arches. But they look like gills and would have developed into gills in our piscine ancestors.